NFL 2017 changes?

[Sleeper66]

1 hour ago, daniel75 said:

I still prefer the Vikes new stadium, that place is beautiful.

Birds would disagree.

[AstroCree]

Everyone is getting/got fancy new stadiums with crazy designs meanwhile the Jets and Giants settled for this.

[Gothamite]

On 8/22/2017 at 2:42 PM, CreamSoda said:

After watching a few Lions highlight videos, I can see some concerns with the numbers and their lack of contrast on the blue jersey.   Any chance they could be forced to change those next season?  Add a white outline or make the numbers themselves white?

 

Nope. 

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, insert name said:

Everyone is getting/got fancy new stadiums with crazy designs meanwhile the Jets and Giants settled for this.

 

"settled"?  I've never been there, but it seems perfectly fine.  I prefer open corners, but it seems like a perfectly serviceable stadium with all the modern amenities.  All that crap like what Atlanta built is just unnecessary fluff.  It's contrived uniqueness.  In a way, this stadium is unique because it's reminiscent of the cookie-cutters but with all the modern touches.

 

The Atlanta stadium looks horrible to me.  I don't really care too much about the outside, but despite what the other poster said, that opening looks way too small to create any semblance of an outdoors feel.  Combine that with the fact that the concourses are closed off to the elements, and I can't see any way that it won't feel exactly like going to the dome did.  Seems like an enormous waste of money to me.  Just build another dome and forget the mechanical :censored:.

[Sykotyk]

As for MetLife Stadium, I've been there. The feel you get entering and walking around does not match with the price tag. AT&T Stadium is great, though the retractable roof is overkill. A great stadium, to me, has been Lucas Oil Stadium. Which is a slightly smaller AT&T Stadium in seating bowl, more rugged and industrial feel to the concourses and roof structure, and doesn't feel as spaced apart. Though the giant videoboard is missing.

[The_Admiral]

On 8/18/2017 at 5:31 AM, Chawls said:

 

What are the perimeters for "old-school teams"? 

Let's say pre-AFL, so Bears, Packers, Lions, Cardinals, Rams, Steelers, Browns, Colts, 49ers, Eagles, Giants, Redskins. Can we agree those 12 teams look their best in black cleats?

[Dynasty]

Why exactly does that stadium need to be so enclosed? I can see Minnesota going that route, but Atlanta?

[The_Admiral]

On 8/20/2017 at 8:17 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

Joining the black cleats vs. white cleats debate...

 

This is my poorly thought out, basically off the top of my head, final decisions (all based on the team's current uniform, as is).

 

Black Cleats; 49ERS, SEAHAWKS, VIKINGS. BEARS, PACKERS, GIANTS, EAGLES, WASHINGTON, SAINTS, PANTHERS, FALCONS, PATRIOTS, BILLS, JETS, BROWNS, BENGALS, STEELERS, RAVENS, COLTS, JAGUARS, TEXANS, RAIDERS, CHIEFS

 

White Cleats; CARDINALS, RAMS, LIONS, COWBOYS, BUCCANEERS, DOLPHINS, TITANS, BRONCOS, CHARGERS

edited for line breaks

I had sort of the same thing in mind but with a third DImension

Black cleats: Bears, Packers, Lions, Giants, Eagles, Redskins, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals, Steelers, Browns, Colts, Falcons, Saints

White cleats: Raiders, Chargers, Broncos, Chiefs, Jets, Bills, Patriots, Dolphins, Bengals, Titans, Vikings, Cowboys

Team color cleats: Seahawks, Buccaneers, Panthers, Jaguars, Ravens, Texans

The white-cleat teams are either AFL, indoor, carpet, or some overlap thereof. The old-school teams are in black. New teams can do new things.

[oldschoolvikings]

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

edited for line breaks

I had sort of the same thing in mind but with a third DImension

Black cleats: Bears, Packers, Lions, Giants, Eagles, Redskins, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals, Steelers, Browns, Colts, Falcons, Saints

White cleats: Raiders, Chargers, Broncos, Chiefs, Jets, Bills, Patriots, Dolphins, Bengals, Titans, Vikings, Cowboys

Team color cleats: Seahawks, Buccaneers, Panthers, Jaguars, Ravens, Texans

The white-cleat teams are either AFL, indoor, carpet, or some overlap thereof. The old-school teams are in black. New teams can do new things.

 

Yeah, if "team color cleats" are an option (and I mean that the whole team would wear them, not just some of them), that changes everything.

[Chawls]

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

Let's say pre-AFL, so Bears, Packers, Lions, Cardinals, Rams, Steelers, Browns, Colts, 49ers, Eagles, Giants, Redskins. Can we agree those 12 teams look their best in black cleats?

 

LOL! We're the internet! You know we can't agree on anything!

 

• Bears? AGREE, because of the darker colors are their uniforms. 

• Packers? NEUTRAL; I started watching them when Favre was at the helm, when they were a white cleated team. But I can see why some prefer them with black. 

• Lions? DISAGREE; The main complaint people had about the Lions was the unnecessary inclusion of black. The removal of black from their entire uniform has really helped to bring out the vibrancy of the Honolulu blue and silver. That removal of black includes their cleats.   

• Cardinals? DISAGREE, because their current uniform is too modern to warrant the traditionality of black cleats. 

• Rams? DISAGREE, those beloved royal blue and yellow Rams wore white cleats. 

• Steelers? NEUTRAL; I see why black cleats would be preferred, as not only is it part of the old school aesthetic, but they even have black as the dominant color in their scheme. If they maintain their exact current uniform, then I'll prefer white cleats, but if they went back to the block numbers, then I wouldn't argue against that return of black cleats. 

• Browns? DISAGREE, as both their 80s era and "Jeff Garcia era" unis (the latter being my personal favorite) both utilized white cleats with no issue to their overall aesthetic.

• Colts? DISAGREE; They use so much white in their uniform (it's even their secondary color), I can't see the justification for it. The early era Peyton/Edgerrin/Marvin unis with the blue facemasks with the white cleats were flawless. 

• 49ers? DISAGREE; see Rams. Also, Montana and Young teams both wore white. Those have a storied history.

• Eagles? AGREE IF, they maintain their current colors. See Bears. DISAGREE IF, they return to the Kelly green. The Jaworski era Super Bowl team wore white. History. 

• Giants? DISAGREE; The 1st NFL team to wear white shoes. There is no black anywhere else in their uniforms. They look fine now. 

• Washington? NEUTRAL. The Joe Gibbs Super Bowl teams wore white, so I'm partial to them, but the black looks fine with the darker burgundy. 

 

 

 

[BlueSky]

15 hours ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

Why exactly does that stadium need to be so enclosed? I can see Minnesota going that route, but Atlanta?

 

Probably because they understand they can either ask people to sit in Atlanta's heat and humidity or ask them to pay out the a** for PSLs and tickets, but not both. Oh, and that ice storm that hit one of the Super Bowls that was played here. As for the aesthetics, I think BBTV said it all with the term "contrived uniqueness."

 

One very thoughtful touch is naming it for Mercedes Benz so the Saints will feel even more at home here than they do already.  

[Ben in LA]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:38 AM, bosrs1 said:

 

Nope. The people in Metro Atlanta are just suckers and let their governments replace two perfectly fine stadiums that were at worst average for their respective leagues with shiny slightly nicer toys, on a large chunk of the public's dime.

 

 

It's funny how a renovated Superdome originally built in 1975 is still perfect for Super Bowls while another dome built in 1992 (and renovated as well I think) is "out of date".  Nice stadium though (the second Mercedes Benz one!), but I still think the city got played.

[BlueSky]

The city's logic was priceless: the pubic money would come from hotel/motel taxes and so on, so visitors would be paying the $200 million. Which conveniently ignores the fact that regardless of the source, it's still public money that could have been used for a laundry list of things Atlanta desperately needs more than a new stadium. 

 

One of those HGTV-style renovation shows did an Atlanta fire station a couple of years ago. I'm sure it was a typical station and it was such a dump that if you tried to put homeless people in it, protesters would march on City Hall. They had to get a mattress manufacturer to donate new beds for the firefighters. It was really a disgrace to the city and another slap in the face to public safety employees who are told again and again about how there's no money for anything.

[bosrs1]

5 minutes ago, BlueSky said:

The city's logic was priceless: the pubic money would come from hotel/motel taxes and so on, so visitors would be paying the $200 million. Which conveniently ignores the fact that regardless of the source, it's still public money that could have been used for a laundry list of things Atlanta desperately needs more than a new stadium. 

 

One of those HGTV-style renovation shows did an Atlanta fire station a couple of years ago. I'm sure it was a typical station and it was such a dump that if you tried to put homeless people in it, protesters would march on City Hall. They had to get a mattress manufacturer to donate new beds for the firefighters. It was really a disgrace to the city and another slap in the face to public safety employees who are told again and again about how there's no money for anything.

 

The Chargers tried the same line about it "not being your tax money" and "it would be coming from visitors" with their half baked ballot initiative in San Diego last fall. SD voters weren't buying it recognizing it is all public money. Worst part, with how much money Spanos has spent on moving to LA and his contribution to Inglewood, they could have built a stadium and a half in San Diego 100% privately. Schmucks.

[goforbroke]

7 hours ago, BlueSky said:

 

Probably because they understand they can either ask people to sit in Atlanta's heat and humidity or ask them to pay out the a** for PSLs and tickets, but not both. Oh, and that ice storm that hit one of the Super Bowls that was played here. As for the aesthetics, I think BBTV said it all with the term "contrived uniqueness."

 

One very thoughtful touch is naming it for Mercedes Benz so the Saints will feel even more at home here than they do already.  

 

Can't have Final Fours in an open stadium.  Also in general if you have the money its better for everyone to have a roof -- concerts, trade shows etc.   I get that football CAN be played in the elements but it doesnt HAVE TO -- but the stadium becomes 1000x more versatile if you have a roof option.

 

[goforbroke]

[Dynasty]

I never understood that logo. Are they trying to depict the Chargers as a lightning bolt or a mustang? You can't have it both ways (looking at you, Rays).

[WSU151]

20 minutes ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

I never understood that logo. Are they trying to depict the Chargers as a lightning bolt or a mustang? You can't have it both ways (looking at you, Rays).

 

A mythical horse as fast as lightning easily combines both.  Kent State does the same with eagles.

[djam2410]

Too bad the Dolphins outlines on the numbers don't show up as well from afar as they do up close

 

 

These still look great to me despite what others say

[BlueSky]

1 hour ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

I never understood that logo. Are they trying to depict the Chargers as a lightning bolt or a mustang? You can't have it both ways (looking at you, Rays).

 

Knights' horses were called chargers so that's the reason for the equine in the logo. From Wikipedia: "While highly prized by knights and men-at-arms, the destrier was not very common. Most knights and mounted men-at-arms rode other war horses, such as coursers and rounceys. These three types of horse were often referred to generically as chargers."